Both
George Bush via Katherine Harris and Al Gore through his lawyers are equally
guilty in using "partisans and lawyers" to win Florida, a Thursday
night CBS Evening News story decided.

Wyatt Andrews ran through the strategies employed by
both candidates before concluding: "Candidate Bush says he wants a fair
and accurate count of the votes. Candidate Gore says he wants to honor the
true will of the people. That's what they say. What they are doing is asking
partisans and lawyers to find the advantage that wins them Florida."

CNN's Judy
Woodruff on Thursday only cared about having federal judges appointed by
President Bush recuse themselves without asking about the same course of
action for those nominated By President Clinton.

On the November 16 Inside Politics, Bob Franken outlined
the political make-up of the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals in Atlanta, the
court to which the Bush team is appealing a federal district court ruling that
it did not have reason to stop a state recount:
"There are twelve
members. Seven are Republican-appointed by Republican Presidents, five by a
Democrat. Of the Republicans, four were appointed by President Bush, father of
the presidential candidate, and on the Democratic side, four were appointed by
President Clinton of the Clinton-Gore administration. Judy."
Woodruff wondered:
"Bob, on that very point, would the fact that they were, those who were
appointed by President George Bush, the father of the candidate vitally
interested in the outcome here. Would that be cause for any of those justices,
or judges, to recuse themselves?"

As if the Clinton-appointed judges would have any more
or less a partisan interest than the Bush-named ones.

Franken answered, as transcribed by MRC analyst Brad
Wilmouth: "Everybody would be startled if that were to occur. The judges,
particularly at the federal level, like to make the claim that in fact their
political dispositions before they were judges do not affect their
dispensation of justice. There are others, however, who say that there is a
predilection to rule a certain way. We're gonna have to see how this comes
out. But in any case, no one is expecting any of these judges to recuse
themselves."

Catching up
with Thursday morning material I didn't have room for in this morning's
CyberAlert, network morning show hosts were clearly displeased with Florida
Secretary of State Katherine Harris's decision to certify vote totals before
some counties completed a full hand count. Her lawyer was pounded and other
GOP guests hammered on all three morning shows while the hosts sympathized
with Democratic VP nominee Joe Lieberman.

On the November 16 Good Morning America, ABC's Charles
Gibson suggested to Lieberman that since Harris is "Governor Bush's
co-chair in the state of Florida, should she recuse herself from this entire
matter?" Moments later Diane Sawyer quizzed Harris's lawyer:
"Given that she is a declared Republican, why not go the extra mile in
this situation, and at least in order to assure the perception of fairness,
bring in outsiders from all parties to help deliberate?"

CBS's Jane Clayson demanded of Harris's lawyer on
The Early Show: "What do you say to Floridians who now believe that they
have been left without a voice in this election because of Ms. Harris'
decision?" Incredibly, Gumbel asked Lieberman: "Has the Governor's
tone, his behavior since Election Day disappointed you?" In contrast,
Clayson argued with Haley Barbour about why Bush wouldn't accept Gore's
offer to meet: "Why not meet now?....Wasn't that a conciliatory move on
the Vice President's part?...Wouldn't you agree that this is so divisive that
it might help America, sort of pull us all together?"

NBC's Katie Couric mildly challenged Joe Lieberman, but was
not nearly as tough as Matt Lauer was with Republican Fred Thompson, to whom
he argued: "In places like Palm Beach County though isn't it true that
legal actions from the Secretary of State and from the Bush campaign actually
delayed the process?"

Here are details on the three November 16 morning show
interview segments:

> ABC's Good Morning America.

Charles Gibson to Joe Lieberman:
-- "Senator
Lieberman, Vice President Gore made an offer last night. Governor Bush's
response was a flat turn-down. Your response to Governor Bush?"
-- "But the
Republicans seem to be hanging their entire strategy on what Governor Bush
said last night, that recounts, and particularly a statewide recount, would be
arbitrary and chaotic. Secretary Baker earlier, former Secretary of State
Baker earlier had used the word 'crazy.'"
-- "When you say
outside observers, former President Carter made an offer last night that he
and President Ford could come in to oversee this whole thing. Is that
acceptable to you?"
-- "Meanwhile, the
Secretary of State in Florida, to whom you made reference just a moment ago,
says she won't accept or count any of the hand recounts that are now underway.
First of all, your role on her role, since she's Governor Bush's co-chair in
the state of Florida. Should she recuse herself from this entire matter?"
-- "Her avowed statement
is that her intent is to accept the vote as it now stands, with Governor Bush
having a 300-vote lead, plus the overseas absentees, that are yet to be
counted, and then bring down the curtain. Is your only recourse to that then
in the courts?"
-- "The Bush folks expect
to win the overseas absentees. Do you expect to lose them?"

Diane Sawyer later interviewed Harris's lawyer, Joseph
Klock, and posed these questions taken down by MRC analyst Jessica Anderson:
-- "So let me ask
you about what we just heard Senator Lieberman say. He says basically that
counties came to the Secretary of State and said we need recounts for several
reasons. We need them because our limited recounts have shown that the votes
change and this could be critical in this election, we need them for
logistical reasons -- some of the machines, apparently, didn't record some
votes -- and also because of the confusion, and the Gore campaign argues her
answer was, 'Tough, too bad.' Your response."
-- "Well, as you
know, the counties, some of them have argued that with all the confusion,
there was no way that they could get a recount done by the deadline she had
set and this really becomes the question. Even Judge Lewis seemed to hint that
the legislature felt that the accuracy of the vote was more important than the
quickness of the vote. Which is more important: accuracy or a deadline?"
-- "You know,
people sitting at home, some people sitting at home can't follow all of the
legal niceties in all of this."
Klock: "They're
lucky."
Sawyer: "But
another question has been raised, another question has been raised, which is
given that she is a declared Republican, why not go the extra mile in this
situation, and at least in order to assure the perception of fairness, bring
in outsiders from all parties to help deliberate these decisions?"

> CBS's The Early Show. Jane Clayson pressed Klock,
as observed by MRC analyst Brian Boyd:
-- "Can you
elaborate on why Katherine Harris decided not to include these hand counts,
these recounts?"
-- "But it was to
her discretion, and she could have decided whether or not she wanted to
include them or not. Why didn't she?"
-- "Can you explain
the process that Ms. Harris went through coming to this decision, because a
lot of people believe she had her mind made up from the start."
-- "I guess the
question is how difficult was it for her to make this decision, and how much
did she consider her own political future?"
-- "Mr. Klock in
our last ten seconds here what do you say to Floridians who now believe that
they have been left without a voice in this election because of Ms. Harris'
decision?"

Bryant Gumbel hardly questioned the Democratic position
in his softball inquiries to Lieberman:
-- "I'm sure you
weren't surprised by the GOP dismissal of Mr. Gore's offer, why do you think
Governor Bush turned it down?"
-- "Well, he said
that you could not have any uniformity of manner in which you would count
those ballots by hand. You don't buy that?"
-- "Has the
Governor's tone, his behavior since Election Day disappointed you?"
-- "What are your
expectations from the absentee ballot count?"
-- "On a personal
note, how nerve racking has the past week been?"
-- "But have you
and the Vice President not had any private talks about when the costs of
winning this, whatever it might be, becomes too prohibitive either in the
national interests or in the court of public opinion? Have you had any private
discussions along those lines?"

But instead of being equal with the GOP representative,
former RNC Chairman Haley Barbour, and ask him how disappointed he is with the
Democratic position, The Early Show's Jane Clayson made him defend the Bush
position:
-- "Why did
Governor Bush reject the Vice President's offer so quickly?"
-- "Well, what's
wrong with recounting the entire state. Why would that be less fair?"
-- "The Vice
President also asked to meet with Governor Bush as soon as possible. The
Governor said he would meet with the Vice President after the election is
over, why not meet now?"
-- "Wasn't that a
conciliatory move on the Vice President's part, and why wouldn't the Governor
agree to that?"
-- "Wouldn't you
agree that this is so divisive that it might help America, sort of pull us all
together?"
-- "Governor Bush
referred to that last night. He was actually referring to Al Gore when he said
quote, 'We have a responsibility to respect the law and not seek to undermine
it when we do not like its outcome.' Do you really believe that the Gore camp
is trying to cheat you out of this election?"
-- "I've got 15
seconds left and I want to ask you how much you think Governor Bush is playing
to the court of public opinion now?"

> NBC's Today. Katie Couric at least challenged
Senator Joseph Lieberman a bit in some of these inquiries taken down by MRC
analyst Geoffrey Dickens:
-- "First of all
let me ask your reaction to Katherine Harris's decision last night that she
will not include the votes that have been hand-counted in the final
tally."
-- "But Senator
Lieberman, didn't the courts basically say the hand counts could continue but
she did not have to include them in the final tally?"
-- "So on what
grounds, Senator Lieberman, will you go to court today to try to get it
overturned."
-- "When you heard
Governor Bush's rejection what was your reaction last night?"
-- "Meanwhile the
Wall Street Journal says this morning that you are in fact the one pushing the
Vice President the hardest to hang in there and fight this because you believe
he won the election or the two of you won the election. Are you urging him on
behind the scenes?"
-- "Are you trying,
are you saying that they are trying to steal this election from you
Senator?"
-- "Very quickly,
let me ask you one question. Because you did not give me a straight answer
when I asked you this the other morning, so let me try again. If the court
says the Secretary of State must include the hand recounts in the final tally
and that is done for the counties in question and the absentee overseas
ballots are also added and you and Vice President Gore continue to come up
short will you concede that George W. Bush is the next President of the United
States?"

Matt Lauer introduced the GOP guest of the morning:
"The Bush campaign has asked Tennessee Senator Fred Thompson to speak for
them this morning. He is aiding the Bush team in, in the efforts in Florida.
Senator Thompson, good morning to you. Senator Lieberman just said that the
Secretary of State of Florida's actions were very arbitrary and they require
voters now to go to court to make sure their votes are heard. What is your
reaction?"

Lauer's other questions:
-- "So Republicans
have not favored handcounts in any counties in the state of Florida and not
asked for any."
-- "But the
Secretary of State Senator Thompson asked, but the count...she asked the
counties to come up with reasons, these written statements turned in by two
o'clock yesterday and the counties obviously came up with reasons such as
confusing ballots and discrepancies between the number of counts you just
talked about. Why aren't those legitimate reasons to allow this to go on, what
the Democrats say four more days? They're saying Saturday would be 10 days
past the election. If you give them four more days they'll wrap it up."
-- "In places like
Palm Beach County though isn't it true that legal actions from the Secretary
of State and from the Bush campaign actually delayed the process? That that
hand count may have been completed by now had there not been for
lawsuits?"
-- "But isn't the
problem that, that, that Vice President Gore has been picking up votes in
these recounts and if it continues, if George W. Bush's lead continues to
shrink that even if he is named President he will be seen as an illegitimate
President by a large number of people in this country?"

Retired
Senator Bob Dole took up media bias Thursday in an op-ed piece in the Wall
Street Journal titled, "The Media's Pro-Gore Bias: They paint Katherine
Harris as partisan and Bob Butterworth as disinterested." Here's an
excerpt:

....Let me give you an example of media bias. Realizing that it is losing
on the message, the Gore campaign has now resorted to attacking the messenger.
In this case, it is assaulting the integrity of the secretary of state of
Florida, Katherine Harris, in the hopes of blurring the fact that she is
simply upholding the law. Never mind that she was elected by the people of
Florida. Never mind that she has been praised by Democrats and Republicans for
her work on the state's behalf. And never mind that she does not have a
partisan reputation.

Ms. Harris has said that she will uphold the election laws in Florida, and
for that, her character is questioned. Vile comments made by Alan Dershowitz
(and reported in the press) referring to Ms. Harris as a "crook,"
only serve to remind us of the poisonous rhetoric directed at some women by
this administration over the past eight years.

But it's one thing for the Gore campaign to question her integrity. It's
another for the mainstream media to follow suit. Yesterday's banner headline
in the New York Times proclaimed, "Judge Upholds Hand Recounts in
Florida." No fair and balanced reading of that ruling would come to that
conclusion.

Staying with the Times: In a front-page story about Ms. Harris in Tuesday's
edition, the lead sentence called her a "Republican Party stalwart who
serves in Governor Jeb Bush's cabinet." The story went on to discuss her
role as co-chair of George W. Bush's Florida campaign. It would be okay if the
Times wanted to label this as an opinion piece. But the front page? This was
not serious news. It was an editorial posing as a front-page story.

But if the media are unable to refrain from labeling certain players as
"partisan Republicans," then fairness demands that they hold
Democrats to the same bar. Unfortunately, this appears too much to ask.

One of the central figures in this entire recount is Florida Attorney
General Bob Butterworth. On Monday, Mr. Butterworth came forward with an
advisory opinion urging Palm Beach County to ignore Ms. Harris's ruling that
manual recounts should not be conducted there. This despite the fact that Mr.
Butterworth's own Web page says he has neither the authority nor the
jurisdiction to provide advisory opinions on election issues.

In reporting these events, few in the media have mentioned that Mr.
Butterworth is an intense partisan who was Mr. Gore's campaign chairman in
Florida. A double standard?

Nor will it do for pundits to tell us that their polling shows the American
people want all the votes to count. Of course the American people want all the
votes to count. But how would they respond to an accurately phrased question:
"Do you think there should be recount after recount in selective highly
Democratic counties until the Gore campaign gets the result it wants?"

T.S. Eliot once said that politics is too important to be left to politicians.
I hope the same will not be said of journalists. I believe the American people
would make a few simple requests of the mainstream media: Let's be fair, let's
be accurate, let's be balanced, and let's do this right.

>>>
Support the MRC, an educational foundation dependent upon contributions
which make CyberAlert possible, by providing a tax-deductible
donation. Use the secure donations page set up for CyberAlert
readers and subscribers:http://www.mrc.org/donate

>>>To subscribe to CyberAlert, send a
blank e-mail to:
mrccyberalert-subscribe
@topica.com. Or, you can go to:
http://www.mrc.org/newsletters.
Either way you will receive a confirmation message titled: "RESPONSE
REQUIRED: Confirm your subscription to mrccyberalert@topica.com."
After you reply, either by going to the listed Web page link or by simply
hitting reply, you will receive a message confirming that you have been
added to the MRC CyberAlert list. If you confirm by using the Web page
link you will be given a chance to "register" with Topica. You
DO
NOT have to do this; at that point you are already subscribed to
CyberAlert.
To unsubscribe, send a blank e-mail to:
cybercomment@mrc.org.
Send problems and comments to: cybercomment@mrc.org.

>>>You
can learn what has been posted each day on the MRC's Web site by
subscribing to the "MRC Web Site News" distributed every weekday
afternoon. To subscribe, send a blank e-mail to: cybercomment@mrc.org.
Or, go to: http://www.mrc.org/newsletters.<<<